If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

So I have one question: If the CIB would take over operating Conseco Fieldhouse as rumored, the Pacers would be staying, correct?? It wouldn't automatically mean the Pacers would have to get out of town and making plans of where to move to immediately, correct??

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Well, given all this I guess we need to change our thinking. The Simons really screwed Indianapolis, we were much better off in 1983 and would have been in so much better shape if the Pacers had simply moved then.

Let's go back to the downtown of the 1980s. It was quiet, almost no traffic, people could get plenty of sleep, there were no greedy commercial entrepreneurs - a veritable paradise.

The city doesn't need the Pacers, and an empty Fieldhouse doesn't hurt since the penalty cost would pay for it. When the Colts go empty in 10 years we can stand up to Irsay the same way and we'll have a big stadium for the kids to play in.

Indianapolis can set the trend! We can be a world class city with no professional sports!

Seriously, thanks for the info on the Simons' kick-in. It sounds at worst like it was the same as Irsay's for the Colts.

It may get interesting, but I'm about to resign myself to the Pacers being toast in Indianapolis. We'll have a couple of lame-duck years while someone builds a new stadium, but otherwise it's been nice to know ya.

Bunch of thugs anyway who never won anything.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Owner Herb Simon says he has lost $200 million in 27 years on the franchise. The taxpayers are not responsible for that. Nor should the taxpayers begrudge the fact that Simon Property Group was able to offer $2.5 billion for a bankrupt shopping mall company just this week.

How many times does it need pointed out that PSE and SPG are completely different things... I think someone posted in the other thread Herb doesn't even own any of SPG anymore.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

How many times does it need pointed out that PSE and SPG are completely different things... I think someone posted in the other thread Herb doesn't even own any of SPG anymore.

Youre right he doesn't. But something tells me he didn't give away his share of a multi-billion dollar company that he helped build from the ground up. At the end of the day, Herb is still a billionaire.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Ask Seattle how they miss their Supersonics. And KC is missing their Royals....
Again, lose a franchise and double the bucks (at least) to get one in return.

Um...so this is breaking news then?

I'm pretty sure Seattle isn't missing NBA ball all that much, not financially at least. Fans can still follow the team, but they also have 2 major sports franchises in town, both in brand new stadiums.

If you've been to Seattle you know it's not like the city is lacking in interesting things to do. The owners screwed the city, the city wasn't wrong to say "hold on a second...".

Some people look at this issue and start around the circle one direction with what's wrong with the sport or the Pacers or the Simons. Others look at the issue and go around in the other direction with what's wrong with the community or the government or the economy or Indiana. You have closed the circle by observing that pro sports'role in the economy is just very irrational altogether.

If women's flat-track roller derby got as much corporate and public aid as the NFL has gotten, roller derby might be as big as football. Most will say that's ridiculous, but there's no way to separate the true popularity of football (or basketball) for its own sake from the whipped up interest that comes from hero worship on Wheaties boxes, palatial arenas to play in, and a thousand other corporate and tax-funded boosts.

The Pacers franchise and the city of Indianapolis are both reckoning with the effects of an absurdly optimistic projection of the team's economic impact and revenue potential. It is a shame. I don't like the Ballard administration, but I feel sorry that they've got this dumped in their lap.

Dead on man.

Look, think of it this way. What if that was a super Lilly building and the city paid for 75% of it, let Lilly profit off it for non-Lilly work also done in the building, and only charge Lilly $15m a year.

Then Lilly said "well, we don't even want to pay for that actually...".

You think Lilly doesn't have operating costs or property taxes? The Pacers aren't paying property taxes for a building they virtually own, nor are they technically paying rent.

It's a BUSINESS MODEL. Part of that business is leasing or buying the property to operate the business. No matter where they move this is the case. Any other business would be laughed out of town for these demands, at least with the explanation that comes with them.

I mean they weren't paying $15m for Conseco costs in 1998, but they are claiming 2 decades of financial losses. A successful businessman continues to run a -$10m a year business for a quarter of his lifetime? Does that seem realistic to you?

Out of love for the city he does this? Okay, well let's call that your philanthropy and will all cut you slack if you stop donating to other local charities. Supporting a financial disaster for local sports moral reasons only is quite a gift.

Just look at the timing these last 2 years. Back in 1999 when Simons wanted to get Conseco built did they mention one single time that the team had been losing 70-100m dollars the prior decade? HELL NO.

You know why? The same reason I don't tell a loan officer that I need to borrow money to expand or improve my business, which is losing s***loads of money each year. The guy would laugh at my attempts to get his financing.

When you want to get financial help with your biz, get loans or partners or whatever, you paint this great picture of financial strength. Just like the Simons were doing in 98-99.

Why? IT BENEFITTED THEM.

Same reason why they are crying poor now, just coincidentally right before a big negotiation deadline.

Hands up, who thinks Herb Simon puts this little advert out to sell the team:
"NBA Franchise, small fanbase, bad finances, has lost $200m the last 20 years, yours for a fair deal".

I'm betting the picture he paints for potential buyers differs just a teeny tiny bit from the picture used in the press to fight local government.

I don't even relieve CIB of some of their issues, I'm just annoyed by the "oh my god, I can barely live right now" PS&E angle.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Youre right he doesn't. But something tells me he didn't give away his share of a multi-billion dollar company that he helped build from the ground up. At the end of the day, Herb is still a billionaire.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Youre right he doesn't. But something tells me he didn't give away his share of a multi-billion dollar company that he helped build from the ground up. At the end of the day, Herb is still a billionaire.

I wasn't denying Herb is still a billionaire. I just get tired of people, like whoever wrote this article, bringing up the money SPG is spending. SPG is publicly owned so there is no way they could spend any money on the Pacers, who are privately owned, even if Herb still did own some of SPG.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

No, it doesn't seem right that the city take over the operating costs of Conseco, however if the Pacers leave, the city will still have to pay the 15mil operating costs.

It seems to me there are two possible outcomes. The city pays the 15mil to operate the building with the Pacers still in Indy, or, the city pays the 15mil to operate the building without the Pacers still in Indy.

Just because the team leaves, it doesn't mean the operating costs of Conseco simply disappear. The city would still have to pay for it. Yes it may receive the revenue from the events, but I highly doubt that would cover the financial losses local business would suffer were the team not there anymore.

Yes the Pacers are a private company (so why should public money be used to help fund it?), but I think some are dismissing or not considering the financial positives the team brings to the city. Remember, this cost of the arena will be there regardless on whether the team stays or go. Wouldn't you rather the team be there?

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Yes, I'd rather have the team here but I don't think they should be allowed to bend the city over for all they're worth either.

They had a deal when Conseco was built and now they're trying to renegotiate because they can't field a team that fills the stadium. The threat of leaving the city if the babies don't get their way is more than likely an empty threat. As previously mentioned, there's a hefty fine they'd have to pay in order to leave. Plus, where exactly would they go?

If they want to leave then so be it. Indy will likely be able to attract another team.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Yes, I'd rather have the team here but I don't think they should be allowed to bend the city over for all they're worth either.

They had a deal when Conseco was built and now they're trying to renegotiate because they can't field a team that fills the stadium. The threat of leaving the city if the babies don't get their way is more than likely an empty threat. As previously mentioned, there's a hefty fine they'd have to pay in order to leave. Plus, where exactly would they go?

If they want to leave then so be it. Indy will likely be able to attract another team.

Indy will not be able to attract another team for the same reasons they're struggling to keep one.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

No, it doesn't seem right that the city take over the operating costs of Conseco, however if the Pacers leave, the city will still have to pay the 15mil operating costs.

It seems to me there are two possible outcomes. The city pays the 15mil to operate the building with the Pacers still in Indy, or, the city pays the 15mil to operate the building without the Pacers still in Indy.

Just because the team leaves, it doesn't mean the operating costs of Conseco simply disappear. The city would still have to pay for it. Yes it may receive the revenue from the events, but I highly doubt that would cover the financial losses local business would suffer were the team not there anymore.

Yes the Pacers are a private company (so why should public money be used to help fund it?), but I think some are dismissing or not considering the financial positives the team brings to the city. Remember, this cost of the arena will be there regardless on whether the team stays or go. Wouldn't you rather the team be there?

For the sake of the franchise and us as the fans of it, I wish that your post were true.

Without the Pacers, the city reduces by roughly 45 dates per year the amount of additional utilities required for water usage, electricity for lighting and climate control as well as all of the appliances used for cooking food and keeping refrigerators and walk-in freezers going, as well as the staffing required to man the facilities from both a security, maintenance, and overall operations standpoint, and on top of that reduces the amount of repairs for the extra wear and tear that those dates as well as practices place on the facility, as well as the amounts of staffing time it takes to convert the building from its primary function as a basketball facility into whatever other configurations are required for other events.

If the operating costs of the building were not reduced by more than half with the Pacers not in that building anymore, I would be very surprised. So, no, the overall cost of the building would NOT remain at the $15 million figure it currently is at, even if the climate control is maintained to keep the building from deteriorating. Even relatively sparse crowds and all of the cooking and lighting and other heat generators that are present make it quite a bit more expensive to keep the building at a constant temperature in the low 70's (I believe that is where it is kept).

Then, if the city were to get the revenue from the events, even more of the deficit could be made up, because the events are currently much better attended on the whole than Pacers games are.

Local businesses in the near vicinity of the Fieldhouse would suffer somewhat, but the city overall would not lose much because the majority of people who attend are likely to use the discretionary spending that goes towards all things associated with going to games on other entertainment options in the city or surrounding communities. The biggest loss would be the employment of whatever staff is required to operate the facility who only work on game nights.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

I don't see Simon moving the Pacers out of Indy if the city doesn't give them what they want, BUT the issue of selling the Pacers is quite another thing. New Pacer ownership might be a good thing.

Wasn't there someone on this board about 3-4 years ago who made a statement that they knew Bird had a deal in place with the Simons to buy the Pacers when they decided to sell it? I personally can't see Bird having the finanical ability to do it, or would be willing to tie his life's money up in a franchise that lost money all these years.

My feeling is the City of Indianapolis has a lot more pressing problems that they need to address than spending 15 mil on the Pacers. In particular, the Indianapolis Public Schools system!!

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

The Indianapolis Motor Speedway has never received any public money. The speedway attracts fans from all over the earth. It is three events now rather than one and could be four if the road course is ever used by the Indycars.

Yes, I would miss the Pacers but the burden has reached the point of taxation absurdity. It is player salaries that have continued to climb while most of America has regressed. Ask me I know! I'm working for less than I was 15 years ago. I had to sell my home and get rid of all my debt to eat each week. Trust me, doing that was one of the major accomplishments of my life. I now have a nice 1 bdrm apt. and free internet courtesy of the wireless motel link across the street. Otherwise this post might not exist. I'm happier now than I have been in 2-3 years. Taxpayers need to make a stand. Maybe the Pacers can "threaten" to file chapter 11 reorganization and renegotiate that bad aba contract, or the family receiving that money might be out all of it. Hopefully the Pacers name can stay here.

"He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

WHY on earth do you let these revisionists and (excusez le mot) storm-brewers like bball create your opinion ??

about12 months ago i posted this :

Quote:

Originally Posted by BballThe real problem here is the NBA business model and some bad team decisions. Not the deal for Conseco Fieldhouse. So why is that the focus? They should be putting their energy into fixing the real problem, JMO.

It's exactly what they are doing, CFH is costing them 15 million USD a year, with that post OFF their balance sheet the Pacers in general make a profit, so their business model aint that wrong, it's the housing cost that is.

So. how good was this deal, how much money did it cost the taxpayer of Indiana and what and who is still in debt on CFH ?

CFH cost $ 183 mio to build, coming in at a little 4% over budget due to ecenomny, financed by;

Quote:

May 6, 1999
Copyright 1999 MediaVentures

The Conseco Fieldhouse, the new home of the Indiana Pacers that opens this fall, is running about four percent over budget, putting the final estimated cost at $183 million. The original budget was $175 million. Much of the extra cost came from dealing with contaminated soil at the site. Construction expenses, brought on by a strong economy, also added to the increase. The same strong economy has kept interest rates down, allowing the city to borrow more to meet the cost without increasing its financing cost.

The city has invested $79 million in the venue with $57 million coming from the Pacers and the rest will come from other private sources. The private money will be repaid by the city in 20 years. The Pacers' contribution will come from arena revenues and will be paid over 20 years. Public funding is supported by a tax district and an increase in the hotel-motel tax. A ticket tax will also provide funding for the debt.

Based on the fact that last year those taxex on food and tickets were US$ 8 million, the 10th year of the opening of CFH, one can assume that a very large part of that "public" finance has been paid back by the Pacers themselves, add to that the 50% they paid of by now on the US$ 57 mio financing they had to pay for, and one can conclude that outside the maintenance and running cost very little cost are coinciding with CFH.

Indianapolis owns the building, for which a large part was paid by the Pacers and based upon taxes coming in as well, paid in full by the Pacers, yet the Pacers are also maintaining and running it to their own detrimental tune of $ 15 mio.

On top of that they were still paying for MSA:

Quote:

November 11, 1999
Copyright 1999 MediaVentures

The Indiana Pacers opened their new $183 million retro-style fieldhouse to an enthusiastic crowd last weekend. The venue replaces Market Square Arena and offers fans better sight lines, better concession facilities and a host of other improvements. It's design is intended to reflect a high school fieldhouse.

The venue features 71 luxury suites, including two party suites, priced from $89,000 to $175,000 and 2,500 club seats selling for $2,050 to $3,239. The venue has a 400-seat Varsity Club for the club seat holders.

Other amenities include larger and more locker rooms and improved press facilities.

The team agreed to a new 20_year lease and must pay off $150 million in bonds on Market Square Arena. The team also gets all revenue and must pay $500 million in damages if it leaves before its lease expires. The team is responsible for $57 million of the cost. Another $79 million came from various local taxes and the rest is from private contributions. Among those contributions is an in-kind contribution of $10 million from Eli Lilly and Co. for use of adjacent land for a parking lot. Ogden Entertainment will provide general concessions while Levy will be operating the premium food service. Local restaurants will also have a presence in the new arena.

compare that to LOS:

projected to cost $ 500 million, actual cost $ 720 mio

Quote:

The stadium project is linked with the expansion of the Indiana Convention Center. These projects will be funded by a 1% tax on all prepared food in the 9 counties that surround Indianapolis except Morgan County. Marion County (County that holds Indy) will fund the project with an additional 1% tax on top of the original 1% that Marion Co. already pays for the RCA Dome. The project will also be funded by an increase in the Marion County hotel tax, rental car tax, also the sale of special Colts vanity license plate, and future lottery tickets earmarked for the project.

On top of that:

Quote:

In addition, details to be released today could include a provision reducing the city's obligation to make annual payments to the Colts beginning in 2006 to keep them playing here. Under the team's existing contract, the city could owe the Colts payments totaling at least $36 million through 2008, when the new stadium would open.

--skipped--

The development agreement does not call for a ticket tax -- and makes it almost impossible for the state to impose one. If the state wants to try, the development agreement says, officials have to consult with several groups first, including the Indiana Pacers, the Indianapolis Indians, the city and hospitality groups. Even then, the Colts could break their lease if the ticket tax is imposed, said John Klipsch, executive director of the Indiana Stadium and Convention Center Building Authority.

And finally WHY CIB is in trouble in reality and this has nothing to do with the Pacers asking for something they haven't got yet:

Quote:

INDIANAPOLIS VENUE BOARD SEEING RED INKJanuary 29, 2009Copyright 2009 MediaVentures
Indianapolis, Ind. - The Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board, which manages Lucas Oil Stadium and other sports venues, says its operating deficit could grow to $43 million by next year, far worse than projected and too large for it to solve alone.
Part of the problem: the expected renegotiation of the Indiana Pacers' lease of Conseco Fieldhouse. The basketball team pays $15 million a year to cover game-day expenses, and the CIB, calculating the worst-case scenario, is assuming it could have to take over that cost.
To get out of its financial mess, the CIB could try to renegotiate better deals with the Indianapolis Colts and other sports teams that use the stadiums it runs.
It also could ask city taxpayers for help, though no new taxes could be raised without the OK of the city or state.
Neither option was discussed; instead, board members said the goal was to review the problem and kick off efforts to find solutions.
The situation is so dire that board Treasurer Ann Lathrop said auditors are reviewing the CIB's finances as a "going concern," a term used to suggest that its near-term viability is in question.
The board already had projected an operating deficit of up to $20 million per year in running Lucas Oil Stadium, and it added $5 million to that total for other facilities this year. Just as pressing, the CIB now expects to have to pay $43 million this year for unanticipated loan and insurance obligations brought on by the ongoing world financial crisis.
Debts that could have been handled in the past are being called in by banks short on cash, Lathrop said. Another one-time debt payment of nearly $34 million more will come due in 2017. Bob Cockrum, the City-County Council president and a CIB member, said nearly every option for a solution is on the table.
Raising taxes during a recession, he said, likely would provoke a strong negative reaction. "Some people would support it for one team or another, but others would say enough is enough," Cockrum said. "I don't think a bailout is an option."
He said the first step for the board was to reduce expenses.
It ordered a cut of 8 percent, or about $6 million, from this year's budget of $78 million and instituted immediate freezes on hiring, salaries and travel.
Just how effective any of the more obvious solutions might be will be a big question for the board to tackle.
Colts owner Jim Irsay could not be reached for comment, but Pete Ward, the team's vice president, last year said the idea of "reopening a (lease) agreement that took four years to negotiate is ludicrous."
Patrick Early, the board's vice president, said the struggling Pacers are expected to use their option to renegotiate their lease this year.
He said he expected the CIB will have to take on more of the expenses of running Conseco if it wants to keep the team in Indianapolis.
"All we've established is that the business model we're working with now can't work in the long term," Early said. "We haven't figured out a solution, but I believe it's in the best interest of the city to have the Pacers stay in that building."
Early said the Pacers' owners, Mel and Herb Simon, can't continue to lose money on the team, even as he acknowledged that the players' legal troubles in the recent past contributed to falling attendance and income. He said the team makes less than the NBA average because it's in a smaller TV market.
"Ultimately, we own the building," Early said, "so we'll have to deal with those expenses." While the Pacers pay $15 million a year to play at Conseco, the city agreed to bear game-day expenses for the Colts in exchange for a lease that would keep the team in town for at least 30 years.
Rick Fuson, chief operating officer of Pacers Sports & Entertainment, said in a statement that he was pleased that the CIB is already looking at the problem.
CIB President Bob Grand said the board will need to work with the teams, the city and financial experts to get out of its trouble.
He said he was not ready to ask the Colts to renegotiate a deal that many have criticized as too generous. But he said the board will review CIB grants for the arts and other groups and try to find a way to manage its facilities better.
Grand had asked Lathrop to study the costs of the new stadium once a full season was complete. Lucas Oil Stadium, at 1.8 million square feet, is nearly double the size of the recently imploded RCA Dome, so its higher operating costs aren't surprising. Its water and electricity costs are higher, too.
With the higher costs, the CIB operating fund balance will dwindle to $5.6 million this year from tens of millions in past years.
The problem can be traced to the plans developed to finance the stadium.
City officials had anticipated covering increased costs with taxes from a proposed Downtown casino. But when the state wrested control of the building project in 2005, the new plan included no casino or other way to cover the increased operating expenses.
State officials say they never agreed to pay those costs. Under the terms of the state's financing, excess revenue from higher taxes on food and beverage sales, hotel bookings and car rentals will be used to pay off construction bond debt early rather than to cover operating costs.
Officials think an expanded convention center – expected by late 2010 – and the new business it attracts eventually will help cover the CIB's operating costs. But the board's problems are more immediate.
Grand said he did not expect the board's financial problems to affect the city's hosting of the 2012 Super Bowl. (Indianapolis Star)

now can we focus on what is really going on instead of saying Pacers run a bad business model ? they pay off CFH and ran it, now they're tired of bearing all cost, rightly so.

Revising history seems ot become a trademark, but not one i endorse.
Get to grip with reality and seek out the truth of what is happening.

Pacers leave, new owners pay 50 mio to Indy, Indianapolis still owns the building and has to pay maintenance, but are out of 8 - 10 million dollars in ticket tax, income and other related taxes and not to mention the downgrade of taxes coming in on food and lodgings with the departure of the Pacers

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Indy will not be able to attract another team for the same reasons they're struggling to keep one.

Memphis has a pretty good roster. I'd take that over our current situation.

Ok...I admit I have not read everything in this thread but I read a bunch. What is going to happen when Peyton Manning retires in a few years and that enormous behemoth is empty?...a building that cost the city FAR more than Conseco. What have the Irsays done compared to the Simons?

Ok, there was that little Super Bowl, I suppose.

But the Simons I believe have done much more for the city and have earned it. They bailed out the Pacers and ultimately served up Reggie Miller and the 90's. Those years provided a tremendous amount of entertainment for the city, including free games to the entire city on TV. They started SPG, a business that now employs a large number of Hoosiers. Without Simon money that would not have happened. They are the reason that downtown Indy was revitalized whether you want to point to the Pacers or Circle Center.

By itself, Circle Center has spawned hundreds of businesses employing thousands of people. It was considered a huge risk at the time and became a huge success creating hundreds if not thousands of additional jobs in the surrounding area. One might say we owe the Simons something along the same lines that Eli Lilly gets enormous tax breaks for hiring 9000 people who they have since started rapidly shedding.

Yes, the Simons are in it for a profit, but they have delivered for the city big time. In any event, I want to see the city push back with the Colts who have cost the city much more...and when Manning is gone the Colts will probably be in the same position in the standings as the Pacers are currently.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Leave it to Kravitz to lead the revolt in today's Star. I hope he realizes if the Pacers are gone this city is not going to get an NHL team.

I read Kravitz column... I'm sad to report, but I agree with most if not all of it. Between watching how this season ended and hearing that O'Brien was coming back, Troy Murphy was our best player, we STILL need a point guard or TJ to get better & there is little that we can do realistically to improve the team in the off-season....

Sounds like Kravitz for once is Right on the money as far as most fans are concerned. Hell, I'm nearly at the point that I regret that I re-upped for another year of this schtuff.

Like a bout of food poisoning, my annual meeting with the tax guy, my next dental cleaning and a post-50 prostate exam.

Why the unbridled joy?

Poll: http://www2.indystar.com/marmot/view/poll/75/new">How many games will the Pacers win next season?

First, coach Jim O'Brien is coming back. Pacers president Larry Bird reiterated that Thursday during his now-annual mid-April post-mortem, which always seems to dovetail with the beginning of the playoffs for almost everybody else. Hope there are still season tickets available when I write my check.

As I've written before, I don't drop all the losing on O'Brien; this is a rebuilding project, and we all understand that. But this team wasn't ready to play this season and was out of playoff contention early, no small feat in the Eastern Conference. Remember the talk of an improved defense? The improvement was marginal, at best.

True, the cash-strapped Pacers would have a hard time pleading poverty when they let a $3 million a year coach walk, but sometimes, you have to spend money to make money. O'Brien doesn't sell any tickets. He's a cold fish. Nice man, but he makes vanilla look, well, vanilla. I'm getting sleepy just writing this paragraph.

And the excitement doesn't end there. Your 2010-11 Pacers will look almost exactly like your 2009-10 Pacers.

Let the season-ticket-buying frenzy begin!

What? You don't want to watch the incremental progress of Brandon Rush, whose points and rebounds approximated the production of Tyler Hansbrough -- and in double the number of minutes? You can't wait to look toward the end of the bench and see what kind of wardrobe T.J. Ford's $8.5 million salary can buy?

Sorry.

Pacers executive Jim Morris put me in this mood.

In Bird's defense, he doesn't have a lot of options here, at least none that will vastly improve the team's fortunes as soon as next season. He has done what had to be done, understanding the only way out of this salary jam was to wait it out and point toward next season and next summer. When you make mistakes the size of Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley, and have franchise-altering incidents like the ones involving Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson, there are no quick fixes.

Trading Ford? Good luck with that. His only asset is he has an expiring deal, but who's going to take him on this summer when he has shown he's not even good enough to start for a Pacers team that can't make the playoffs?

Bird said this Thursday and I nearly fell out of my chair: "If we happen to get a good point guard in here or if T.J. comes back and has a great year, we'll be a lot better basketball team because everything starts with the point guard."

Right. T.J. just needed those two years off to catch his breath. Going to be an All-Star next year. What?

I look at Ford and I have Tinsley flashbacks. Consider, with Tinsley gone and Ford in street clothes, the Pacers will be on the hook for nearly $14 million in non-existent points guards. (Wait a minute; $14 million would almost pay for the Conseco Fieldhouse operating shortfall!)

Trading Mike Dunleavy? Not going to happen this summer, not after he spent the entire year trying to recover from offseason surgery. Now, if he has a good summer and follows with a productive year, he'll be a nice asset come the trade deadline, but nothing happens before February.

Trade Troy Murphy? In theory, Bird could move Murphy this summer and improve his team next year, but it makes more sense to sit tight, wait for the arrival of the trade deadline and maximize his value when more playoff-bound teams will be bidding.

The Pacers are going to remain largely unchanged unless Bird can pull off a couple of inspired deals, maybe move his way up toward the top of the draft, or deal for an available point guard such as New Jersey's Devin Harris or New Orleans' Darren Collison. And no, I'm not holding my breath.

The point guard position has been like third base with the Chicago Cubs. The Pacers have finished the past five seasons with five point guards -- Anthony Johnson, Tinsley, Flip Murray, Jarrett Jack and Earl Watson.

(Oh, and Watson is likely to leave as a free agent, leaving, um . . . never mind.)

For the Pacers to somehow reach .500 next year, everything has to go right.

Hansbrough, whose mystery illness still has him on the shelf, has to come back healthy and ready for training camp. (Oh, if only they'd taken one of the many available point guards in last year's draft.)

Dunleavy has to have a great summer and be ready to start the season.

Jeff Foster, who has been falling apart for years, has to keep himself together with staples and duct tape.

And even then, it might not be enough, not without a real-life starting point guard.

Plus, Bird can't miss on this draft. He knows it. He brought up the Shawne Williams mistake Thursday, without provocation.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

Able - you run a business. You either rent or own the property it is run on. That involves costs, either rent, utilities, property taxes, depreciation/maintenance...

That's PART of the business, not some crazy extra cost that a company can't afford to take on like it's some special thing.

If only you could get London to pay for all your electricity and server replacements, then you could turn a good profit, right?

Business costs - so unfair.

As I said, they are portraying 20 years of losses, not 5-6. Not all those years involved $15m in maintenance or the current salary amounts. And once again, as I said, they DID NOT MENTION THIS when they made any pitches they had to make to get the Conseco deal done in the first place.

They didn't tell loan people that they were running a failing business, they didn't tell the city that things were so bad they might have to move in 10 years, they didn't cry to the press about 10 years of $70m-$100m losses (they didn't lose all $200m in the last 9 years after all).

Forget the business article spin, let's just talk MOTIVATION and TIMING. The motivation to present the type of case they are now, one that contradicts the case they made 10 years ago (in terms of being in the red or black), is plain to see. They want to reduce costs, they want someone else to pay.

This might as well be a bunch of us at dinner where one guy starts talking about all the medical bills he has and how tough time are in order to get us to pick up the check. When he went to get a car loan the day before he somehow failed to mention this burden of debt and dire financial outlook.

In the end my opinion on any biz, political, etc situation is that the motivations have a lot less to do with some complex situation and a lot more to do with the basics of human nature.

Plus, I made the case in another thread that the Pacers could EASILY trim that $15m out of the payroll after next season and keep it under control for 2 seasons in a row at least and without throwing the team to the dogs. Danny is a locked up at a good price, add one more guy at 9-11m and avoid spending too much to keep Rush and Roy in a couple of years, letting them go if need be, and you've got a competitive bunch of players that cost at least $15m a year less than this group.

The irony in all this is that it was fear of losing sponsorship money that drove them to make a horrible deal that locked them into a high payroll with a bad W-L. When you look at the balance sheet and at the Troy/Dun money right now, does that club level sponsorship really offset those costs?

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

I just feel as if the big picture is not being seen. The team has brought a lot to this city, so have the Colts. I mean you just have to think of the development of downtown since those Knicks playoff games.

Indianapolis seems to be the exception and not the rule when it comes to Sports affecting the local economy. It kind of gives us an identity in peoples subconcious. It made us know to New York and LA. Think of all the development coming from these big corporations going into downtown Indy.

There isn't a product this city could ever manufacture that would surpass the advertising value of hosting a Super Bowl and an NBA Finals and a Final Four. It makes Indianapolis seem like a vibrant place. What about that Hotel tax they are racking in with these big events. They are making at least 10 dollars a room on tax.

The Pacers just have to win. Simple as that. Win now or we may loose them forever. I'm sure Granger is tried of missing the playoffs. I bet Hibbert really wants to go. I hope our team next year can win 10 out of 12 all year. I mean thats all I can really hope for at this point, as an Indiana Pacers fan. The young core is going to have to progress...

A deep playoff run can really generate some tax revenue in the future. The city really is close to slaughtering the dairy cow for meat. This situation is dire and downtown Indianapolis would suffer tremendously from an empty fieldhouse.

Give them a bail out now and hope in the future they will win again. The cities hands are tied and people aren't paying for a bad product. Larry Bird really needs to get this thing on track by training camp.

Re: Star Editorial: City should stand up to Pacers

The team has brought a lot to this city, so have the Colts. I mean you just have to think of the development of downtown since those Knicks playoff games.

The development of downtown Indianapolis includes several aspects:

3 new sports venues

several new hotels and dozens of restaurants

Circle Center and other retail

whopping expansion of commercial and office space

bloated state bureaucracy

several new parking structures (to serve daily commuters)

theater and concert venues

growth of IUPUI into a major campus

The Pacers and Colts are the reason for the first bullet and a contributing factor to the second. But they are immaterial to the other types of development, which sum up to far more than the sports teams can account for.

The sports teams have made a positive contribution to the downtown culture, I admit that happily. But you can't just say, "Look at downtown!" and conclude that the sports teams did all that.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)